On Tuesday July 5, 2016, FBI Chief James Comey gave a speech. As many others have
mentioned, there seemed actually to have been two, unconnected, Comey
speeches.
https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/statement-by-fbi-director-james-b.-comey-on-the-investigation-of-secretary-hillary-clintons-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system
The first speech gave us a detailed description of lawless activity clearly in violation of 18 U.S. Code § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information.
(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of
any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph,
photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument,
appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1)
through gross negligence* permits the same to be removed from its proper
place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to
be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that
the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or
delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen,
abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss,
theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both. (Emphasis added) https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793
Comey, in the first speech, characterized Clinton and her associates as having been "extremely careless" in their handling of her emails in general and classified ones in particular. As far as I know "extremely careless" is not a legal term, although "carelessness" is defined in Black's Law Dictionary in part as,
"...The careless person is the person who does not take the care he ought to take: never mind whether he felt careful. He can be held to be negligent in making a perfectly honest mistake". Black's Law Dictionary, 7th Edition, P. 205. (Emphasis in the original).
When used by an experienced lawyer like Mr. Comey, it may or may not be a euphemism for gross negligence. From all I have read and from my own viewing experience I had the impression that he intended it to convey the depths of his contempt for Clinton and company's disregard for the norms of behavior in the handling of state secrets.
The reason for his use of the expression in lieu of gross negligence became clear to me in the second speech, the one that said, essentially, nothing to see here. Had he used "gross negligence" in the first speech he would have materially reduced the already limited coherence of drawing the no prosecution conclusion in the second. An already incoherent conclusion would have been rendered more incoherent.
As you can see from the statute above, the intentions of the subjects being investigated have no relationship to the breaking of the law in subsection (f). This contrasts (f) with (a) and (b) which require intent as part of the crime.
In his second speech Comey said:
In looking back at our investigations into
mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that
would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases
prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful
mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed
in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or
indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice.
We do not see those things here.
Far more authoritative voices than mine have called foul on this. It just doesn't ring true. Andrew McCarthy at NRO http://www.nationalreview.com/article/437643/fbi-director-james-comey-testimony-clinton-defense-crumbles-under-scrutiny
demolishes Comey's assertions in detail.
We are left to wonder why Mr. Comey, of apparently spotless reputation, chose to humiliate himself in this manner.
None of the wondering leads anywhere we want to go.
The presidential election of 2008 ushered in, in my opinion, our Emperor's New Clothes era (ENC). Mr. Comey continued it, in grand style, with his speech.
We elected a black President, have had two black Attorneys General, a black man sits on the Supreme Court, a black man heads Homeland Security, we have dozens of black mayors, congresspersons, thousands of black state legislators, city council members and judges (I found no firm figures but extrapolated from this http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/3/29/1372225/-Just-how-many-elected-officials-are-there-in-the-United-States-The-answer-is-mind-blowing )and descend into racial chaos because we are racists.
We know we are not racists and the evidence is everywhere and overwhelming, but, we must admire the ENC. Among the most overwhelming evidence we have of this is that at 13.125% of the population, black people cannot elect anyone without a great deal of help from us racists. source
We are told of a great new deal with Iran that will stop them from building a nuke, but we aren't allowed to see the whole deal...because it is so good. But, we must admire the ENC.
UPDATE: Now we know that the part we weren't supposed to see will allow Iran to halve, to six months, the time it will take them to build a bomb when the deal expires . Who could have guessed?
We are told how brilliant our President is but we cannot see his college transcripts...because they are so great. ENC.
Unemployment is at pre-2008 levels Hooray! Not! ENC source
Everybody knows that right-thinking Americans have always supported gay marriage, and not agreeing makes you a neanderthal.
Right. source Note the relationship between Obama's change of heart and the 2012 election. ENC.
The list goes on forever. Black is white, white is black. ISIS is not an Islamic organization. We are not sure what motivated Mateen. Hillary didn't do anything she should be prosecuted for and, according to Mr. Comey, a statute that says gross negligence is the required level of responsibility to complete the crime doesn't really mean that.
Which brings us to Donald Trump. I am, at the moment, an extremely reluctant supporter. Among the reasons for my reluctant support is that I can't take being told black is white and white is black anymore.
As I have written before, good luck to all of us.
*Gross Negligence is defined in part as ...A conscious, voluntary act or omission in reckless disregard of a legal duty and of the consequences to another party. Black's Law Dictionary, 7th edition, P. 1057
A lot has been written about conservatives' discomfort with the threshold of gross negligence as sufficient for a criminal conviction. The reason for the discomfort is the exploding number of new crimes being minted by government agencies. Using gross negligence as the replacement for criminal intent places ordinary citizens in jeopardy.
Hillary Clinton is not an ordinary citizen. She signed several documents confirming that she understood the rules. She was grossly negligent in carrying out her duties and should be prosecuted for that malfeasance.
Friday, July 15, 2016
Tuesday, July 12, 2016
Black Lives Matter. Problem solved.
Monday, July 04, 2016
The Declaration of Independence
Thanks to Scott Johnson at Powerline http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2016/07/the-eternal-meaning-of-independence-day-2-2.php the following passage from Calvin Coolidge's July 4, 1926 speech has once again been brought to my attention. This time I was actually paying attention.
I will reproduce the section that Mr. Johnson displays in his post with several additions of emphasis.
"About the Declaration there is a finality that is exceedingly restful. It is often asserted that the world has made a great deal of progress since 1776, that we have had new thoughts and new experiences which have given us a great advance over the people of that day, and that we may therefore very well discard their conclusions for something more modern. But that reasoning can not be applied to this great charter. If all men are created equal, that is final. If they are endowed with inalienable rights, that is final. If governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, that is final. No advance, no progress can be made beyond these propositions. If anyone wishes to deny their truth or their soundness, the only direction in which he can proceed historically is not forward, but backward toward the time when there was no equality, no rights of the individual, no rule of the people. Those who wish to proceed in that direction can not lay claim to progress. They are reactionary. Their ideas are not more modern, but more ancient, than those of the Revolutionary fathers."
Could there be a clearer statement of the truth?
I will reproduce the section that Mr. Johnson displays in his post with several additions of emphasis.
"About the Declaration there is a finality that is exceedingly restful. It is often asserted that the world has made a great deal of progress since 1776, that we have had new thoughts and new experiences which have given us a great advance over the people of that day, and that we may therefore very well discard their conclusions for something more modern. But that reasoning can not be applied to this great charter. If all men are created equal, that is final. If they are endowed with inalienable rights, that is final. If governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, that is final. No advance, no progress can be made beyond these propositions. If anyone wishes to deny their truth or their soundness, the only direction in which he can proceed historically is not forward, but backward toward the time when there was no equality, no rights of the individual, no rule of the people. Those who wish to proceed in that direction can not lay claim to progress. They are reactionary. Their ideas are not more modern, but more ancient, than those of the Revolutionary fathers."
Could there be a clearer statement of the truth?
Thursday, June 30, 2016
Clintonworld
The AP reports that Bill Clinton had a private meeting with Loretta Lynch, Attorney General of the United States. https://www.yahoo.com/news/clinton-lynch-met-privately-phoenix-airport-133019729--election.html
Yes, the woman who will ultimately decide the fate of HRC. She also happens to be the woman who will certainly be out of a job if HRC does not win the Presidency and, given the often reported hostility between the Obama and Clinton camps, would probably have been out of job even if HRC did win. I wonder how Bill made her the offer she couldn't refuse and what it consisted of. His mega billion dollar foundation might be a perfect soft landing, if the investigation finds nothing to prosecute. On the other hand, it may have included keeping her AG spot if HRC wins. Of one thing I am absolutely certain; grandchildren did not enter into the conversation.
We have all heard of the importance of politicians, judges and other government employees avoiding the appearance of impropriety.
I can think of few more perfect examples of the appearance of impropriety than a 30 minute private meeting between the nation's top law enforcement official and the husband of the subject of at least one of her agencies' investigations. It has been rumored (unconfirmed as far as I know) that the Clinton Foundation is also under investigation.
Looking around for definitions and examples of the appearance of impropriety I came across this http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/impropriety
The definition is not unusual. It does have a bonus feature;
" Associated concepts: crime, violation"
Yes, associated indeed. A certainty in this case.
The mainstream media has been working overtime to spin this as no big deal but there are some dissenters this time. Some lefties for whom this is just too much water to carry. http://legalinsurrection.com/2016/06/mika-rips-media-blackout-on-clinton-lynch-meeting-people-too-afraid-to-talk-about-the-truth/
It is a big deal. All the participants in the meeting, by virtue of allowing it to take place, have clearly demonstrated their complete contempt for all of us. They are above the law, and they know it.
It is truly sad to be able to write the previous sentence in the United States of America and know that it is a common sentiment, not some conspiracy freak nonsense.
Yes, the woman who will ultimately decide the fate of HRC. She also happens to be the woman who will certainly be out of a job if HRC does not win the Presidency and, given the often reported hostility between the Obama and Clinton camps, would probably have been out of job even if HRC did win. I wonder how Bill made her the offer she couldn't refuse and what it consisted of. His mega billion dollar foundation might be a perfect soft landing, if the investigation finds nothing to prosecute. On the other hand, it may have included keeping her AG spot if HRC wins. Of one thing I am absolutely certain; grandchildren did not enter into the conversation.
We have all heard of the importance of politicians, judges and other government employees avoiding the appearance of impropriety.
I can think of few more perfect examples of the appearance of impropriety than a 30 minute private meeting between the nation's top law enforcement official and the husband of the subject of at least one of her agencies' investigations. It has been rumored (unconfirmed as far as I know) that the Clinton Foundation is also under investigation.
Looking around for definitions and examples of the appearance of impropriety I came across this http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/impropriety
The definition is not unusual. It does have a bonus feature;
" Associated concepts: crime, violation"
Yes, associated indeed. A certainty in this case.
The mainstream media has been working overtime to spin this as no big deal but there are some dissenters this time. Some lefties for whom this is just too much water to carry. http://legalinsurrection.com/2016/06/mika-rips-media-blackout-on-clinton-lynch-meeting-people-too-afraid-to-talk-about-the-truth/
It is a big deal. All the participants in the meeting, by virtue of allowing it to take place, have clearly demonstrated their complete contempt for all of us. They are above the law, and they know it.
It is truly sad to be able to write the previous sentence in the United States of America and know that it is a common sentiment, not some conspiracy freak nonsense.
Monday, June 27, 2016
Gun Control
As everyone but the dead knows, the Muslim Orlando Massacre has made a lot of news.
As the left fulminates and plays hide the bean, professing to be confused about the registered Democrat Muslim murderer's motives, the usual dishonest gun control debates are front and center again.
The 2nd amendment gives us the right to own guns for the primary purpose of defending ourselves from the government.
The amendment was enacted in 1791. At that time, except for cannons and explosives, guns used by the military and police were, as far as I can tell, the same as those owned by citizens. One could argue that at that time gun ownership was an effective method of defense against governmental tyranny.
In 2016 (and long before) we are no longer effectively armed to defend ourselves from the government. Despite hysterical and disingenuous arguments to the contrary, it is already illegal for citizens to own automatic weapons. We can only own single shot weapons. That is not the case for our federal agencies.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/376053/united-states-swat-john-fund
While armed to the teeth federal agencies are a problem they are not, in my opinion, the primary problem with respect to defending ourselves against a tyrannical government.
This is http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/09/us/war-gear-flows-to-police-departments.html
It is impossible for citizens to defend against even local governments now.
We have already been effectively disarmed and have been for quite some time.
As I said in my previous post, "Good luck to all of us".
As the left fulminates and plays hide the bean, professing to be confused about the registered Democrat Muslim murderer's motives, the usual dishonest gun control debates are front and center again.
The 2nd amendment gives us the right to own guns for the primary purpose of defending ourselves from the government.
The amendment was enacted in 1791. At that time, except for cannons and explosives, guns used by the military and police were, as far as I can tell, the same as those owned by citizens. One could argue that at that time gun ownership was an effective method of defense against governmental tyranny.
In 2016 (and long before) we are no longer effectively armed to defend ourselves from the government. Despite hysterical and disingenuous arguments to the contrary, it is already illegal for citizens to own automatic weapons. We can only own single shot weapons. That is not the case for our federal agencies.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/376053/united-states-swat-john-fund
While armed to the teeth federal agencies are a problem they are not, in my opinion, the primary problem with respect to defending ourselves against a tyrannical government.
This is http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/09/us/war-gear-flows-to-police-departments.html
It is impossible for citizens to defend against even local governments now.
We have already been effectively disarmed and have been for quite some time.
As I said in my previous post, "Good luck to all of us".
Friday, June 24, 2016
Election 2016
I have mentioned to a few family members and friends over the last few years that I believe a series of events may unfold that will culminate with the 2016 Presidential election postponed and Obama continuing in office for an indefinite period of time. This notion did not result from anything other than Obama's re-election in 2012 and my assessment of his character and actions.
As the election approaches I am, to my amazement, beginning to think I may be on to something.
I believe the disclosure by the AP that Clinton hid 75 meetings with donors and other private individuals during the time she was SS will prove to be the last straw for her. http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/national-politics/article85708367.html On top of the ever uglier mess her email issue is becoming, this latest is just not tolerable and even she will not be able to overcome it.
Over the last few months I have been thinking about scenarios in which Trump disappears from the race. Among the triggering events I have been considering is his assassination. Apparently someone tried just that a few days ago. http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/trump-assassination-attempt-las-vegas-224643
It will take a while for HRC to give up, but I don't see how, even in 2016 America, she can hold on for long.
So, it's September, she is indicted or forced out of the race by a combination of humiliation and ill-health, Trump is killed.
Obama, as he has demonstrated constantly, has reached the reasonable conclusion that, except for the Supreme Court, no one has the nerve to stop him and the Court has no power of enforcement. He is not constrained by the Constitution. He has nothing but contempt for it. http://www.sunbeamtimes.com/2016/02/15/obamas-contempt-for-constitution-disqualifies-him-on-supreme-court-appointment/
That being the case he will declare a state of emergency and halt the election.
Sounds crazy, doesn't it. I know. On the other hand, look around you. It seems that every federal government agency is armed to the teeth. http://www.nationalreview.com/article/376053/united-states-swat-john-fund
Democrats in the House of Representatives are staging an illegal sit-in. Apparently they are so far gone that the irony of using a 60's style civil rights type sit-in to promote their intention to gut the 1st, 2nd and 4th amendments has not occurred to them. Nonetheless, whatever their tactics, these are elected members of the US House of Representatives and they want the 1st, 2nd and 4th amendments vitiated. They will certainly not complain should Obama put another tear in the Constitution. I think they might welcome it, makes accomplishing their goal that much easier.
The country's legions of social justice warriors, minted during Obama's reign, are on a rampage, intent on destroying every vestige of our history on the theory that the people, white men, almost exclusively, who are responsible for the most astonishingly successful culture in human history, are bad. The President is in their corner. Yes, I know.
Local police forces are now armed with military weapons. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/09/us/war-gear-flows-to-police-departments.html Why do they need these? I don't know why either. Read the whole thing.
Good luck to all of us.
As the election approaches I am, to my amazement, beginning to think I may be on to something.
I believe the disclosure by the AP that Clinton hid 75 meetings with donors and other private individuals during the time she was SS will prove to be the last straw for her. http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/national-politics/article85708367.html On top of the ever uglier mess her email issue is becoming, this latest is just not tolerable and even she will not be able to overcome it.
Over the last few months I have been thinking about scenarios in which Trump disappears from the race. Among the triggering events I have been considering is his assassination. Apparently someone tried just that a few days ago. http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/trump-assassination-attempt-las-vegas-224643
It will take a while for HRC to give up, but I don't see how, even in 2016 America, she can hold on for long.
So, it's September, she is indicted or forced out of the race by a combination of humiliation and ill-health, Trump is killed.
Obama, as he has demonstrated constantly, has reached the reasonable conclusion that, except for the Supreme Court, no one has the nerve to stop him and the Court has no power of enforcement. He is not constrained by the Constitution. He has nothing but contempt for it. http://www.sunbeamtimes.com/2016/02/15/obamas-contempt-for-constitution-disqualifies-him-on-supreme-court-appointment/
That being the case he will declare a state of emergency and halt the election.
Sounds crazy, doesn't it. I know. On the other hand, look around you. It seems that every federal government agency is armed to the teeth. http://www.nationalreview.com/article/376053/united-states-swat-john-fund
Democrats in the House of Representatives are staging an illegal sit-in. Apparently they are so far gone that the irony of using a 60's style civil rights type sit-in to promote their intention to gut the 1st, 2nd and 4th amendments has not occurred to them. Nonetheless, whatever their tactics, these are elected members of the US House of Representatives and they want the 1st, 2nd and 4th amendments vitiated. They will certainly not complain should Obama put another tear in the Constitution. I think they might welcome it, makes accomplishing their goal that much easier.
The country's legions of social justice warriors, minted during Obama's reign, are on a rampage, intent on destroying every vestige of our history on the theory that the people, white men, almost exclusively, who are responsible for the most astonishingly successful culture in human history, are bad. The President is in their corner. Yes, I know.
Local police forces are now armed with military weapons. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/09/us/war-gear-flows-to-police-departments.html Why do they need these? I don't know why either. Read the whole thing.
Good luck to all of us.
Monday, June 20, 2016
Socialism, Again
The 2nd link below is to an AP story about Cuba which was brought to my attention by this Powerline post http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2016/06/cuba-is-cursed-all-right-by-socialism.php.
The AP article's headline referring to Cuba's Curse is, of course, unintentionally hilarious. As John Hinderaker points out the article never does mention the real source of the curse. He is not so reluctant.
"Left unexplained is why a planned socialist economy couldn’t get along without foreign subsidies...Funny, too, how Cuba’s socialist benefactors bite the dust one after another."
http://www.tbo.com/ap/cuba/cuba-hopes-detente-will-finally-break-curse-on-investment-ap_cuba-news6be9b13d4e134a73a4297afa5aa40328
Before anyone launches the US economic embargo argument as the source of the curse please keep in mind that the embargo prevented Cuba from trading with one country on earth. That left about 191 others it could trade with (the UN currently has 193 members).
Socialism fails every single time it is tried. This has been pointed out by far more authoritative sources than me.
I will mention again that the Scandinavian countries are not socialist. They are free market economies with very generous welfare regimes.
"The Nordic model (also called Nordic capitalism[1] or Nordic social democracy)[2][3] refers to the economic and social policies common to the Nordic countries (Denmark, Finland, Norway, Iceland and Sweden). This includes a combination of free market capitalism with a comprehensive welfare state and collective bargaining at the national level.[4][5]
Although there are significant differences among the Nordic countries, they all share some common traits. These include support for a "universalist" welfare state aimed specifically at enhancing individual autonomy and promoting social mobility; a corporatist system involving a tripartite arrangement where representatives of labor and employers negotiate wages and labor market policy mediated by the government;[6] and a commitment to widespread private ownership, free markets and free trade.[7]Emphasis added)
Each of the Nordic countries has its own economic and social models, sometimes with large differences from its neighbours.[8] According to sociologist Lane Kenworthy, in the context of the Nordic model, "social democracy" refers to a set of policies for promoting economic security and opportunity within the framework of capitalism rather than a system to replace capitalism.[9] (Emphasis added)" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_model
Someone should bring this to Bernie's attention.
I think it worth noting that Israel tried socialism too. The Kibbutz regime of co-operative farms failed completely. I had the opportunity to visit the remnants of one two years ago. They failed for the same reason socialism always fails. It is inconsistent with human nature. Human traits are, in my experience, quite evenly divided among any group of humans.
Socialism quite naturally appeals to those with a surfeit of the laziness trait, a considerable number of the total of any human group. After all, what could be better than being licensed to do as little as possible to provide for one's self and be fully provided for by the effort of others.
The others, the productive people seduced by the nobility of the socialist ideology, play along for a while, suppressing another common human trait, self-interest. Until they get fed up watching the lazy live off their effort.
In uniformly socialist countries, once the productive get fed up with watching the lazy live off their effort, a police state develops to coerce the productive into cooperating with the authorities. USSR, Cuba, North Korea, Venezuela. It never ends well.
Happily, at least in this respect, Israel was a hybrid. Now it is not.
The AP article's headline referring to Cuba's Curse is, of course, unintentionally hilarious. As John Hinderaker points out the article never does mention the real source of the curse. He is not so reluctant.
"Left unexplained is why a planned socialist economy couldn’t get along without foreign subsidies...Funny, too, how Cuba’s socialist benefactors bite the dust one after another."
http://www.tbo.com/ap/cuba/cuba-hopes-detente-will-finally-break-curse-on-investment-ap_cuba-news6be9b13d4e134a73a4297afa5aa40328
Before anyone launches the US economic embargo argument as the source of the curse please keep in mind that the embargo prevented Cuba from trading with one country on earth. That left about 191 others it could trade with (the UN currently has 193 members).
Socialism fails every single time it is tried. This has been pointed out by far more authoritative sources than me.
I will mention again that the Scandinavian countries are not socialist. They are free market economies with very generous welfare regimes.
"The Nordic model (also called Nordic capitalism[1] or Nordic social democracy)[2][3] refers to the economic and social policies common to the Nordic countries (Denmark, Finland, Norway, Iceland and Sweden). This includes a combination of free market capitalism with a comprehensive welfare state and collective bargaining at the national level.[4][5]
Although there are significant differences among the Nordic countries, they all share some common traits. These include support for a "universalist" welfare state aimed specifically at enhancing individual autonomy and promoting social mobility; a corporatist system involving a tripartite arrangement where representatives of labor and employers negotiate wages and labor market policy mediated by the government;[6] and a commitment to widespread private ownership, free markets and free trade.[7]Emphasis added)
Each of the Nordic countries has its own economic and social models, sometimes with large differences from its neighbours.[8] According to sociologist Lane Kenworthy, in the context of the Nordic model, "social democracy" refers to a set of policies for promoting economic security and opportunity within the framework of capitalism rather than a system to replace capitalism.[9] (Emphasis added)" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_model
Someone should bring this to Bernie's attention.
I think it worth noting that Israel tried socialism too. The Kibbutz regime of co-operative farms failed completely. I had the opportunity to visit the remnants of one two years ago. They failed for the same reason socialism always fails. It is inconsistent with human nature. Human traits are, in my experience, quite evenly divided among any group of humans.
Socialism quite naturally appeals to those with a surfeit of the laziness trait, a considerable number of the total of any human group. After all, what could be better than being licensed to do as little as possible to provide for one's self and be fully provided for by the effort of others.
The others, the productive people seduced by the nobility of the socialist ideology, play along for a while, suppressing another common human trait, self-interest. Until they get fed up watching the lazy live off their effort.
In uniformly socialist countries, once the productive get fed up with watching the lazy live off their effort, a police state develops to coerce the productive into cooperating with the authorities. USSR, Cuba, North Korea, Venezuela. It never ends well.
Happily, at least in this respect, Israel was a hybrid. Now it is not.
Sunday, June 12, 2016
Socialism
Among our many older friends of long standing is a very smart (as an objective matter), funny and socialist lady. It is my experience that socialists can be very smart. It is also my experience that they tend to be ill-informed and/or choose to ignore the catastrophic shortcomings of their creed by virtue of their complete inability or unwillingness to perform any sort of analysis. They also tend to be multi-millionaires, as is our friend. This last has always puzzled me.
This lady recently underwent hip replacement surgery. She lives in a socialized medicine jurisdiction, Canada.
My wife called her last week to see how she was getting along. In the lady's usual, humorous way she described a post surgical interaction with one of her socialist (naturally) grandchildren. Apparently the grand daughter was outraged that our friend jumped the queue and had her surgery before less well connected Canadians would have.
The grand daughter wanted her granny to share the misery of her socialist sisters and, had she the influence, would have forced her granny to wait, in misery. Her own grandmother. Shared misery is, after all, what socialism always results in. See Venezuela, Cuba, Nicaragua, North Korea, the former Soviet Union etc. (Please note that the Scandinavian countries are not socialist. They are free market economies with generous welfare regimes, as is Canada.)
This story also highlights another ubiquitous aspect of socialism. The connected do not actually live under the socialism they prescribe for everyone else. They jump the queue.
Why? Because socialism cannot co-exist with human nature. It is counter-intuitive to a human not to take advantage of every opportunity to improve the quality of his own life. Thus, every socialist regime becomes brutal when persuasion is insufficient to suppress human nature and people refuse to countenance the shared misery absent coercion. Cuba and North Korea are giant prisons, as was the USSR. What else do you call a place, no matter how large, that one is forbidden to leave without the blessing of the authorities?
There have been a few individuals in human history who appear to have been able to overcome human nature in some respects. Jesus and Mother Theresa come to mind. I know, small list.
Take a close look at any socialist country and what you find, once the veneer has been removed, is a kleptocracy. The rich and connected become richer, the poor poorer and the middle class disappears.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3192933/Hugo-Chavez-s-ambassador-daughter-Venezuela-s-richest-woman-according-new-report.html
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/21/fidel-castro-lived-like-king-cuba
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/18/north-korea-luxury-goods_n_4808823.html
This lady recently underwent hip replacement surgery. She lives in a socialized medicine jurisdiction, Canada.
My wife called her last week to see how she was getting along. In the lady's usual, humorous way she described a post surgical interaction with one of her socialist (naturally) grandchildren. Apparently the grand daughter was outraged that our friend jumped the queue and had her surgery before less well connected Canadians would have.
The grand daughter wanted her granny to share the misery of her socialist sisters and, had she the influence, would have forced her granny to wait, in misery. Her own grandmother. Shared misery is, after all, what socialism always results in. See Venezuela, Cuba, Nicaragua, North Korea, the former Soviet Union etc. (Please note that the Scandinavian countries are not socialist. They are free market economies with generous welfare regimes, as is Canada.)
This story also highlights another ubiquitous aspect of socialism. The connected do not actually live under the socialism they prescribe for everyone else. They jump the queue.
Why? Because socialism cannot co-exist with human nature. It is counter-intuitive to a human not to take advantage of every opportunity to improve the quality of his own life. Thus, every socialist regime becomes brutal when persuasion is insufficient to suppress human nature and people refuse to countenance the shared misery absent coercion. Cuba and North Korea are giant prisons, as was the USSR. What else do you call a place, no matter how large, that one is forbidden to leave without the blessing of the authorities?
There have been a few individuals in human history who appear to have been able to overcome human nature in some respects. Jesus and Mother Theresa come to mind. I know, small list.
Take a close look at any socialist country and what you find, once the veneer has been removed, is a kleptocracy. The rich and connected become richer, the poor poorer and the middle class disappears.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3192933/Hugo-Chavez-s-ambassador-daughter-Venezuela-s-richest-woman-according-new-report.html
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/21/fidel-castro-lived-like-king-cuba
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/18/north-korea-luxury-goods_n_4808823.html
Tuesday, May 10, 2016
Censorship Continued/Updated
Yesterday I wrote about MSNBC's censorship of a Tea Party photo in order to show the opposite of what it really was. (Reminds me of a saying I attribute to a much admired family friend of long standing; "He is such a liar even the opposite of what he says isn't true!")
You may have read about the Ben Rhodes interview published in the New York Times Magazine last week http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/08/magazine/the-aspiring-novelist-who-became-obamas-foreign-policy-guru.html?_r=2.
It has caused a stir quite amusing to those of us not on the political left. In essence Rhodes, a top aide to Obama, proudly confirmed what many of us already new. The Obama Administration peddles lies to an ill-informed (according to Rhodes and me) White House press corps which then dutifully publishes the lies. There are many unamused lefty reporters in Washington and New York. http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2016/05/with-rhodes-as-my-witness.php
A lot of the article revolves around the Obama/Rhodes strategy for selling the Iran nuclear agreement to us. In that regard a Fox News correspondent, James Rosen, comments on his involvement with the issue. At a press briefing on that agreement he had questioned a State Department spokesperson on one of the issues touched on in the article. His report is below.
Toward the end of the report he shows us that the State Department has disappeared his portion of the briefing. For the authoritarians running the country at the moment, making unpleasant and embarrassing questions disappear is standard procedure.
You may have read about the Ben Rhodes interview published in the New York Times Magazine last week http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/08/magazine/the-aspiring-novelist-who-became-obamas-foreign-policy-guru.html?_r=2.
It has caused a stir quite amusing to those of us not on the political left. In essence Rhodes, a top aide to Obama, proudly confirmed what many of us already new. The Obama Administration peddles lies to an ill-informed (according to Rhodes and me) White House press corps which then dutifully publishes the lies. There are many unamused lefty reporters in Washington and New York. http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2016/05/with-rhodes-as-my-witness.php
A lot of the article revolves around the Obama/Rhodes strategy for selling the Iran nuclear agreement to us. In that regard a Fox News correspondent, James Rosen, comments on his involvement with the issue. At a press briefing on that agreement he had questioned a State Department spokesperson on one of the issues touched on in the article. His report is below.
Toward the end of the report he shows us that the State Department has disappeared his portion of the briefing. For the authoritarians running the country at the moment, making unpleasant and embarrassing questions disappear is standard procedure.
https://youtu.be/YZMrCh74zQI
Sometimes even totalitarians have to acknowledge popular outrage. The video has been restored to the State web site
https://pjmedia.com/trending/2016/05/10/the-curious-case-of-the-missing-state-department-tape/
"The Obama administration's Stalinist-level propaganda never looked so obvious and incompetent. No wonder the beltway media (AKA the White House "echo chamber") is hopping mad. No, not at Ben Rhodes, the White House's Chief Propagandist, but at David Samuels, the NYT journalist who brought this all out and made them all look like such willing dupes"
Sometimes even totalitarians have to acknowledge popular outrage. The video has been restored to the State web site
https://pjmedia.com/trending/2016/05/10/the-curious-case-of-the-missing-state-department-tape/
"The Obama administration's Stalinist-level propaganda never looked so obvious and incompetent. No wonder the beltway media (AKA the White House "echo chamber") is hopping mad. No, not at Ben Rhodes, the White House's Chief Propagandist, but at David Samuels, the NYT journalist who brought this all out and made them all look like such willing dupes"
Coming to America
Courtesy of mind-numbingly stupid "progressives" who are determined not to see the obvious, this lovely demonstration of Muslim sensitivity and love of freedom:
https://youtu.be/_TaLiHll0Ag
https://youtu.be/_TaLiHll0Ag
It may well be that there are Muslims willing to live and let live. I do not see how, given the orthodoxy of their religion, but I am told they exist. Unfortunately, if they do exist, they are neither the face nor the dominant element of their religion.
From all I have seen and read, Islam and freedom, as we understand it, are mutually exclusive.
Monday, May 09, 2016
An Essential Explanation
My complaints about the censorship of the news by "news" organizations have been frequent. I have read countless articles claiming that both sides of the political isle complain that the news is slanted in their opponents direction so things must, after all, be in balance and my complaints are nonsense. Nonsense.
I have mentioned Bill Whittle before. A brilliant guy, in my opinion. His clip below illustrates a routine example of censorship by a "news" organization which succeeds in using a picture to convey exactly the opposite of what it conveyed, pre-censorship.
(The photo in question was also used by countless other outlets including, if memory serves, a Newsweek cover.)
My reflex had always to give the benefit of the "good intentions" doubt to those who are found to be stretching the rules. The transgressions of "progressives" over the last thirty years or so (by which I mean since I have been paying attention) have eroded that instinct to the point of erasing it. They do not have good intentions. They do not operate in good faith, as I have mentioned before. Perhaps they never did.
It is impossible for me to believe that the MSNBC reporters discussing the Tea Party in the clip below did not know what the picture in question showed before it was censored. No good intentions. No good faith.
The censorship is not the most important part of the clip below. The most important part is Mr. Whittle's explanation of the how and the why.
Enjoy.
I have mentioned Bill Whittle before. A brilliant guy, in my opinion. His clip below illustrates a routine example of censorship by a "news" organization which succeeds in using a picture to convey exactly the opposite of what it conveyed, pre-censorship.
(The photo in question was also used by countless other outlets including, if memory serves, a Newsweek cover.)
My reflex had always to give the benefit of the "good intentions" doubt to those who are found to be stretching the rules. The transgressions of "progressives" over the last thirty years or so (by which I mean since I have been paying attention) have eroded that instinct to the point of erasing it. They do not have good intentions. They do not operate in good faith, as I have mentioned before. Perhaps they never did.
It is impossible for me to believe that the MSNBC reporters discussing the Tea Party in the clip below did not know what the picture in question showed before it was censored. No good intentions. No good faith.
The censorship is not the most important part of the clip below. The most important part is Mr. Whittle's explanation of the how and the why.
Enjoy.
Thursday, April 14, 2016
Cultural Appropriation
I wrote recently about White Privilege and explained what I think it is and why I think it exists. A parallel lament from our perennial whiners is "Cultural Appropriation", a phenomenon that posits that a person should not use the foods, clothing or other things from cultures he is not a part of. For example, not long ago a free yoga class at University of Ottawa was cancelled by the administration after complaints were received that the instructor was white, not Indian. http://www.metronews.ca/news/ottawa/2015/11/23/university-distances-itself-from-yoga-controversy.html
So it goes with any number of things. White people wearing dreadlocks? Sorry, no. White people owning restaurants selling non-white ethnic foods, er, no.
What progressives (white and non-white) seem to be doing is rebuilding walls between identifiable groups and promoting de-facto segregation. There are now "safe spaces" on university campuses where whites are not welcome. Yes, really. https://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/3xhafz/oberlin_student_radicals_demand_racially/
I find all this very confusing. The same people who have promoted multiculturalism now seem to want to segregate cultures. I thought we were supposed to learn from our exposure to other cultures. After all, every culture is of at least equal value and people, particularly white people, need to learn from all the other much more enlightened cultures that abound on earth. I will confess that I have never understood what I was supposed to learn from an ill-educated Somali shepherd other than how to be a shepherd. Not one of my goals. Oh well.
Bill Whittle is, in my opinion, a brilliant and enormously talented man who has done us all the good turn of producing a video on the subject of cultural appropriation.
Enjoy.
https://www.billwhittle.com/firewall/appropriate
So it goes with any number of things. White people wearing dreadlocks? Sorry, no. White people owning restaurants selling non-white ethnic foods, er, no.
What progressives (white and non-white) seem to be doing is rebuilding walls between identifiable groups and promoting de-facto segregation. There are now "safe spaces" on university campuses where whites are not welcome. Yes, really. https://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/3xhafz/oberlin_student_radicals_demand_racially/
I find all this very confusing. The same people who have promoted multiculturalism now seem to want to segregate cultures. I thought we were supposed to learn from our exposure to other cultures. After all, every culture is of at least equal value and people, particularly white people, need to learn from all the other much more enlightened cultures that abound on earth. I will confess that I have never understood what I was supposed to learn from an ill-educated Somali shepherd other than how to be a shepherd. Not one of my goals. Oh well.
Bill Whittle is, in my opinion, a brilliant and enormously talented man who has done us all the good turn of producing a video on the subject of cultural appropriation.
Enjoy.
https://www.billwhittle.com/firewall/appropriate
Saturday, April 09, 2016
The Choose Your Gender Age
Watching the developing insanity with respect to inviting individuals to disengage from their randomly assigned gender and race has been at once horrifying and mesmerizing.
Apparently modern man has undiscovered humanity. I have written before that if Bruce Jenner wants to pretend to be a woman that is fine with me. If Rachel Dozier wants to pretend to be black that is also Ok with me. Gay and want to pretend to be married, no problem. Do as you wish up to the point that you demand my participation in your fantasy.
The "Bathroom Wars" are now underway. Otherwise apparently intelligent people, mostly "progressives", have decided that anyone who claims to identify as one gender or another, despite their physiology, is entitled to use the gender identified public bathroom of their choice. All but the most willfully blind among us can predict the outcome of this nonsense.
There will be a lot of men using ladies' rooms, not, by the way, because we identify as female but for the much more mundane and predictable reason that we are men, more than a few of us with poor impulse control (particularly under the influence of drugs or alcohol), and an opportunity to share intimate spaces with women has been offered free of consequence.
It is entirely predictable that instances of rape and lesser sexual assault will multiply exponentially if this ridiculous policy is allowed to continue.
For those of you who are confused about your gender, I have a solution:
(Hat tip, Powerlineblog.com)
Apparently modern man has undiscovered humanity. I have written before that if Bruce Jenner wants to pretend to be a woman that is fine with me. If Rachel Dozier wants to pretend to be black that is also Ok with me. Gay and want to pretend to be married, no problem. Do as you wish up to the point that you demand my participation in your fantasy.
The "Bathroom Wars" are now underway. Otherwise apparently intelligent people, mostly "progressives", have decided that anyone who claims to identify as one gender or another, despite their physiology, is entitled to use the gender identified public bathroom of their choice. All but the most willfully blind among us can predict the outcome of this nonsense.
There will be a lot of men using ladies' rooms, not, by the way, because we identify as female but for the much more mundane and predictable reason that we are men, more than a few of us with poor impulse control (particularly under the influence of drugs or alcohol), and an opportunity to share intimate spaces with women has been offered free of consequence.
It is entirely predictable that instances of rape and lesser sexual assault will multiply exponentially if this ridiculous policy is allowed to continue.
For those of you who are confused about your gender, I have a solution:
(Hat tip, Powerlineblog.com)
Tuesday, March 29, 2016
Minimum Wage
Stephen Green is one of several guest posters at http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/. I have encountered his work many times over the years and have often found him to have very useful insights.
Yesterday he offered another useful insight. He made the point on Instapundit that the real minimum wage is zero.
The context was the discussion of restaurant owners' plans to adapt to increases in the California minimum wage. They boiled down to massaging menus to be as labor unintensive as possible and using fewer busboys and low level staff.
So, the result of a raise in the minimum wage, will, as always, be the killing of jobs. The minimum wage for those cooks, busboys and dishwashers now? Zero.
Yesterday he offered another useful insight. He made the point on Instapundit that the real minimum wage is zero.
The context was the discussion of restaurant owners' plans to adapt to increases in the California minimum wage. They boiled down to massaging menus to be as labor unintensive as possible and using fewer busboys and low level staff.
So, the result of a raise in the minimum wage, will, as always, be the killing of jobs. The minimum wage for those cooks, busboys and dishwashers now? Zero.
Saturday, February 20, 2016
Clinton experiencing life as a Republican
It is with no small amount of glee that I am watching Clinton experience a significant part of what it is like to be a Republican.
There is a quite famous cartoon which shows an elephant and a donkey pitching their platforms:
The cartoon perfectly, in my opinion, points out the handicap Republicans operate under given the nature of humans.
Now Clinton is competing with the "Free Stuff" narrative and is getting creamed for the time being.
She does have the advantage of being able to persuade notable (to the left) economists to point out the idiocy of Bernie's assertions in the MSM. So at least she has that going for her.
Friday, January 08, 2016
Why we shouldn't believe in man made "Climate Change"
The first part of the post below was originally published on 11/20/2008. The UPDATE below it is new.
Because the UN is telling us it is so.
The UN, the promoter of the worldwide Aids epidemic will shortly be reporting that their numbers are wildly wrong, according to the Washington Post today.
One of the reasons the numbers are so far off is:
"There was a tendency toward alarmism, and that fit perhaps a certain fundraising agenda," said Helen Epstein, author of "The Invisible Cure: Africa, the West, and the Fight Against AIDS." "I hope these new numbers will help refocus the response in a more pragmatic way." (emphasis added).
The same money driven agenda will be shown to be at work in the Global Warming Industry. It won't be long now. As Radar used to say in M.A.S.H. "Wait for it".
UPDATE 1/8/2016
A little more than 8 years later the hoax is both more and less effective.
More because so many people are making a good living from it. It has spawned entire new industries. Electric cars (subsidized by the government), solar panels (subsidized by the government), wind farms (subsidized by the government). Notice a trend there?
The bureaucrats and "scientists" employed in the effort to perpetuate the hoax are having a ball. Every year they have a global conference with themselves and various politicians and celebrities flying their private, gas guzzling, CO2 emitting airplanes to various exotic spots to eat, drink and play lavishly, all the while exhorting the rest of us to reduce our carbon footprints. The cognitive dissonance is lost on them, but not on us. "Climate change" is now very low on the priority list of most Americans, so low in fact, that it doesn't appear at all on this list http://www.gallup.com/poll/1675/most-important-problem.aspx .
Because the UN is telling us it is so.
The UN, the promoter of the worldwide Aids epidemic will shortly be reporting that their numbers are wildly wrong, according to the Washington Post today.
One of the reasons the numbers are so far off is:
"There was a tendency toward alarmism, and that fit perhaps a certain fundraising agenda," said Helen Epstein, author of "The Invisible Cure: Africa, the West, and the Fight Against AIDS." "I hope these new numbers will help refocus the response in a more pragmatic way." (emphasis added).
The same money driven agenda will be shown to be at work in the Global Warming Industry. It won't be long now. As Radar used to say in M.A.S.H. "Wait for it".
UPDATE 1/8/2016
A little more than 8 years later the hoax is both more and less effective.
More because so many people are making a good living from it. It has spawned entire new industries. Electric cars (subsidized by the government), solar panels (subsidized by the government), wind farms (subsidized by the government). Notice a trend there?
The bureaucrats and "scientists" employed in the effort to perpetuate the hoax are having a ball. Every year they have a global conference with themselves and various politicians and celebrities flying their private, gas guzzling, CO2 emitting airplanes to various exotic spots to eat, drink and play lavishly, all the while exhorting the rest of us to reduce our carbon footprints. The cognitive dissonance is lost on them, but not on us. "Climate change" is now very low on the priority list of most Americans, so low in fact, that it doesn't appear at all on this list http://www.gallup.com/poll/1675/most-important-problem.aspx .
Fundamental Matters
It seems that much of the problem in finding a way to peace in the Middle East is that both sides are telling the truth but only one side is being listened to.
Israel really wants to live in peace, in reasonable security and has no abiding antipathy towards Arabs.
The Arabs do not accept the legitimacy of the State of Israel and have a very vocal, visceral antipathy towards Jews.
For reasons best known to the non-Arab peace negotiators, including the Israelis, and most of the non-Arab public of the world they refuse to accept the Arabs at their vociferous word: We intend to destroy Israel and we intend to destroy the Jews.
They shout this from the rooftops of thousands of Mosques the world over. They shout this from every Arab Capitol . They shout this from every state run newspaper in the middle-east.
They don't just shout this occasionally. They shout it constantly. How is it that such a huge din goes unheard by so many?
Could it be the reluctance of so many to have the discussion that has to be had? Are we afraid to debate the legitimacy of the State of Israel? Are we afraid to point out, clearly, that the Arabs are a civilization bent on genocide?
When the Zionist movement was slowly filling much of pre-Israel Palestine with Jews the Arabs demanded the British do something about it. They did but the Jews kept coming anyway. Here in the USA we are watching the Southwest fill up with illegal immigrants. We understand what the Arabs felt like.
Tuesday, December 22, 2015
Refugee "Women and Children"
Mr. Obama assures us in his customary condescending manner that we are ridiculous, not to mention cowardly, for expressing concern about these "women and children".
Migrants queue on a street to enter the
compound outside the Berlin Office of Health and Social Affairs
(LAGESO) for their registration process in Berlin, Germany Photo: REUTERS
Hmm. I have noticed that our language has deteriorated in the recent past although I doubt it has descended to such depths that even the most progressive of newspeak language architects would apply the description of "women and children" to those in the photo above.
Meanwhile, it seems a few "women and children" are unaccounted for in Germany.
"German authorities are reportedly searching for 12 people who entered the country illegally as refugees using fake Syrian passports and then disappeared."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/12064943/Germany-searching-for-migrants-who-entered-Germany-using-same-passports-as-Paris-attackers.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
The story never does get around to declaring the genders and/or age of the missing.
Friday, December 18, 2015
Indeed
"The whole system seems to have lost its mind. That there’s even a
debate about whether security officials should be allowed to look at the
social-media posts of immigrants is a sign that our bureaucrats have
such open minds their brains have fallen out."
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/428712/terrorism-government-fails-americans
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/428712/terrorism-government-fails-americans
Saturday, October 10, 2015
The Black Lives Matter Foundation
A large majority of the black American population is facing an existential crisis. Dope, family disintegration, poor education and a lack of infrastructure have been plaguing these millions for years.
They have been the target of large scale attempts to improve their environment. Some of Lyndon Johnson's "Great Society" programs were targeted for black Americans (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Society). Then there was school busing and affirmative action and generous welfare regimes. The outcome is generally regarded to be a catastrophe with vast numbers of black Americans suffering from ever worsening drug, domestic, educational and infrastructure problems. 50+ years, countless billions of dollars and very little to show for it.
It seems obvious, given all that has been tried, that solutions which depend on conventional American policy preferences have failed miserably. Internecine war is well underway and claiming new victims in black America every day.
During the period of time that has elapsed since the 1960's civil rights offensive there has been another, parallel, development that has transformed a small but important part of the black community.
Racial barriers to success in sports and entertainment have been removed and declared dead. One noteworthy result of this development has been the accumulation of a vast amount of wealth by some black Americans.
These black American millionaires and billionaires (there are only 2) are easily identifiable. Many of the top 10 are household names; Oprah, MJ, Magic, Tiger and Bill Cosby. We can all name dozens of others; Charles Barclay, Lebron James, Dwayne Wade, Shaq, Kobe, Chris Rock, Morgan Freeman, Barack Obama and so on. No doubt there is a mailing list that identifies them all.
They should create and fund The Black Lives Matter Foundation and proceed to attempt the rescue of their brethren from an existential crisis.
That neither federal, state nor local governments are capable of dealing with the problem is apparent. That there are more black Americans succeeding in less spectacular ways than the millionaires is not arguable. At least that has been accomplished. That many millions more are trapped in an endless cycle of poverty and self-destruction is similarly not arguable.
There is precedent for the members of a community who have succeeded banding together to save those of their brethren who have not. Wealthy American Jews, that very small proportion of Jews who found great success, spent what had to be spent to save the rest of us. Government was no help. Antisemitism was rampant. Our benefactors built hospitals, schools, community centers, in other words, infrastructure. This was not accomplished overnight. But, as is obvious to anyone who cares to see it, it has been wildly successful.
It is, in my opinion, time for that newly minted class of extremely wealthy black Americans to coalesce, assert themselves and commit a portion of their vast wealth to saving their people, as ours were saved. The government has demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt that it is entirely incapable of ameliorating these problems. Some of the reasons government fails so badly at these efforts are baked into the nature of government and the motives of politicians. Government is not a philanthropic undertaking. Politicians are motivated differently than private philanthropists. There is no one else to rely on but yourselves.
Privately funded community centers based on the Jewish Community Center model could provide, free of charge (or otherwise depending on your preferences) supplemental education, job skills training, productive living training, day care services, legal services, drug treatment, food, shelter and an oasis of safety in otherwise turbulent neighborhoods.
No decent medical services in the neighborhood? Build some, we did. You have vast and rapidly growing resources, use them and save your people.
I have no doubt that many of our black American millionaires are very charitable. I believe their charity is being largely wasted in a low-key scattershot approach to solving a problem of immense proportion.
You can do it. It has been done before. In fact we built and generously support an entire country, Israel. You are fortunate to have a country. So build your neighborhoods.
They have been the target of large scale attempts to improve their environment. Some of Lyndon Johnson's "Great Society" programs were targeted for black Americans (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Society). Then there was school busing and affirmative action and generous welfare regimes. The outcome is generally regarded to be a catastrophe with vast numbers of black Americans suffering from ever worsening drug, domestic, educational and infrastructure problems. 50+ years, countless billions of dollars and very little to show for it.
It seems obvious, given all that has been tried, that solutions which depend on conventional American policy preferences have failed miserably. Internecine war is well underway and claiming new victims in black America every day.
During the period of time that has elapsed since the 1960's civil rights offensive there has been another, parallel, development that has transformed a small but important part of the black community.
Racial barriers to success in sports and entertainment have been removed and declared dead. One noteworthy result of this development has been the accumulation of a vast amount of wealth by some black Americans.
- It is reliably reported that there are about 35,000 black American millionaires as defined by the IRS; assets - liabilities - the value of one's primary residence (Dr. D. Kimbro, "The Wealth Choice"). 35,000 millionaires means that they hold, cumulatively, at least 35 billion dollars. That is not assets it is net worth. The remainder after deducting their liabilities.
- We know that they hold a great deal more wealth than that. In fact, the ten wealthiest black Americans hold, between them, 14.6 billion dollars (http://www.techscio.com/richest-african-americans/), so the group of 35,000 can be said to have net worth of at least 49 billion dollars. If half of them have net worth of 10 million dollars and the rest net worth of 1 million dollars then the value of all their net worth would be at least 200 billion dollars. The total is likely closer to 350 billion dollars.
These black American millionaires and billionaires (there are only 2) are easily identifiable. Many of the top 10 are household names; Oprah, MJ, Magic, Tiger and Bill Cosby. We can all name dozens of others; Charles Barclay, Lebron James, Dwayne Wade, Shaq, Kobe, Chris Rock, Morgan Freeman, Barack Obama and so on. No doubt there is a mailing list that identifies them all.
They should create and fund The Black Lives Matter Foundation and proceed to attempt the rescue of their brethren from an existential crisis.
That neither federal, state nor local governments are capable of dealing with the problem is apparent. That there are more black Americans succeeding in less spectacular ways than the millionaires is not arguable. At least that has been accomplished. That many millions more are trapped in an endless cycle of poverty and self-destruction is similarly not arguable.
There is precedent for the members of a community who have succeeded banding together to save those of their brethren who have not. Wealthy American Jews, that very small proportion of Jews who found great success, spent what had to be spent to save the rest of us. Government was no help. Antisemitism was rampant. Our benefactors built hospitals, schools, community centers, in other words, infrastructure. This was not accomplished overnight. But, as is obvious to anyone who cares to see it, it has been wildly successful.
It is, in my opinion, time for that newly minted class of extremely wealthy black Americans to coalesce, assert themselves and commit a portion of their vast wealth to saving their people, as ours were saved. The government has demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt that it is entirely incapable of ameliorating these problems. Some of the reasons government fails so badly at these efforts are baked into the nature of government and the motives of politicians. Government is not a philanthropic undertaking. Politicians are motivated differently than private philanthropists. There is no one else to rely on but yourselves.
Privately funded community centers based on the Jewish Community Center model could provide, free of charge (or otherwise depending on your preferences) supplemental education, job skills training, productive living training, day care services, legal services, drug treatment, food, shelter and an oasis of safety in otherwise turbulent neighborhoods.
No decent medical services in the neighborhood? Build some, we did. You have vast and rapidly growing resources, use them and save your people.
I have no doubt that many of our black American millionaires are very charitable. I believe their charity is being largely wasted in a low-key scattershot approach to solving a problem of immense proportion.
You can do it. It has been done before. In fact we built and generously support an entire country, Israel. You are fortunate to have a country. So build your neighborhoods.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)